2nd Amendment: Nothing Changed In Over Two Centuries

[Flanders]

Television’s ghouls, gun control liars, and race hustlers are off and running again because another nut job used a gun to murder people in a South Carolina church.

“The apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism remains a blight that we have to combat together," he said. "We have made great progress but we have to be vigilant because it’s still lingering and when its’ poisoning the minds of young people it betrays our ideals and it tears our democracy apart.”

Obama 'Not Resigned' on Gun Control After Charleston South Carolina Shooting
Jun 19, 2015, 6:19 PM ET
By ARLETTE SAENZ

Obama Not Resigned on Gun Control After Charleston South Carolina Shooting - ABC News​

NOTE: If guns do betray Taqiyya the Liar’s “. . . democracy . . .” I am in favor of more guns.

Gun control liars continue their war to erase the reason for the Second Amendment:

A George Soros-financed anti-gun advocacy group is implying Americans don’t need weapons, citing its own statistics purportedly showing gun owners rarely actually use their firearms for self-defense.​

Burying the Second Amendment under a mountain of gun control laws —— without actually repealing it —— hinges on convincing the public that self-defense with a gun is unnecessary when the opposite is true:

However, the National Rifle Association (NRA) releasing a statement questioning the data.

“This ‘so-called’ study, which was paid for and promoted by gun control advocates is rubbish,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker stated. “VPC fails to note that only a fraction of defensive firearm homicides are reported to the FBI and the study doesn’t account for the many crimes deterred by a firearm that do not result in a homicide. Recent polling shows that most Americans believe exercising their constitutional right to self-protection makes them safer and this is just another transparent attempt to push gun control.”

Soros group: Americans don't really use guns for self-defense
Posted By Aaron Klein On 06/19/2015 @ 8:49 pm

Soros group Americans don t really use guns for self-defense​

The primary reason for the Second Amendment is more important today than it was more than two hundred years ago:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour. George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress

XXXXX​

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson

XXXXX​

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

XXXXX​

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15-year-old nephew

XXXXX​

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

XXXXX​

And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, & to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, & always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, & a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls. George Mason

XXXXX​

Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Samuel Adams

XXXXX​

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

XXXXX​

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense. John Adams

XXXXX​

They tell us that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Patrick Henry

XXXXX​

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Patrick Henry

XXXXX​

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong. Thomas Paine

XXXXX​

It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. Thomas Paine

XXXXX​

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster

XXXXX​

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. Joseph Story​

Yesterday I received the following by e-mail. I do not know how accurate the following stats are:

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

Statistics courtesy of FBI.

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN. Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than killed by a gun owner!

Out of concern for the public at large, we withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!​

I do know that the number of patients who die from infections they picked in hospitals far outnumbers all of the men, women, and children killed by mental cases with a gun.

 

[Pogo]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

 

[Pogo]

Statistical Comparison:

The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

That's some of the worst cherrypicking EVER.

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

And the relevance of that is?

 

[Auld Phart]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

And the relevance of that is?

Wonder if he knows there were repeating rifles in those days, and a working version of a machine gun?

 

[Pogo]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

And the relevance of that is?

Duh... ?

in 1780 you didn't have the technology to walk into a school or church or mall and mow down 20 people in a few minutes. Therefore "nothing changed in over two centuries" is bullshit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

Pretty sure the OP is talking about a lack of changes in the law and the interpretation thereof, not about technology.

 

[Pogo]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

Pretty sure the OP is talking about a lack of changes in the law and the interpretation thereof, not about technology.

And I'm pretty sure that's why I pointed out what he left out.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

And the relevance of that is?

Duh... ?

in 1780 you didn't have the technology to walk into a school or church or mall and mow down 20 people in a few minutes. Therefore "nothing changed in over two centuries" is bullshit.

That has nothing to do with the essence of the amendment.

 

[Pogo]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

And the relevance of that is?

Duh... ?

in 1780 you didn't have the technology to walk into a school or church or mall and mow down 20 people in a few minutes. Therefore "nothing changed in over two centuries" is bullshit.

That has nothing to do with the essence of the amendment.

How long have you been retarded?

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century. That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

 

[Auld Phart]

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How long have you been retarded?

How long have you been losing debates?

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century.

Of course, and they added no codicils or supplements to deal with advancing technology, which of course it was at that time as well, because they saw no relevance. The point was to guarantee a pre-existing right. The amendment stands under any and all circumstances until repealed by the process mandated by the Constitution. Period.

That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

No relevance whatsoever.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

Not many people actually think the way you do, hence the need to explain yourself.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

And the relevance of that is?

Duh... ?

in 1780 you didn't have the technology to walk into a school or church or mall and mow down 20 people in a few minutes. Therefore "nothing changed in over two centuries" is bullshit.

That has nothing to do with the essence of the amendment.

How long have you been retarded?

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century. That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

...and agree again!
Bravo!

 

[Flanders]

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

To Pogo: Do I have to spell it out for half-wits? The political principle remains the same.

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

To Pogo: Less so than liberals always whining about how many people are killed by automobiles every year.

And the relevance of that is?

To Billy_Kinetta: Pogo’s talking point!

And I'm pretty sure that's why I pointed out what he left out.

To Pogo: Your liberal garbage is the only thing I left out, but you got it in anyway.

That has nothing to do with the essence of the amendment.

To Billy_Kinetta: Exactly so.

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century. That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

To Pogo: Far too many when you count gun control advocates.

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

To WillHaftawaite: Fabulous point. Unfortunately, liberals have no use for freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

 

[Pogo]

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

Show me how you can slay 20 schoolkids with the internet.

TIA.

 

[Pogo]

A Flanders post is like getting a dozen Hallmark cards...

People going to doctors are BY DEFINITION sick, injured or wounded. The comparison is utter bullshit.

To Pogo: Do I have to spell it out for half-wits? The political principle remains the same.

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

Thank you for your post of June 20. I trust this missive finds you well. I am writing to answer the points in that post, to wit, half-wits being the first. I share your concern about said half-wits, but I have good news: I have already put the half-wit in his place in posts 6 and 10. I too was dumfounded that it was necessary to explain it, however that sordid business is now complete.

Regarding your other point, I would remind you that "political principle" is irrelevant, as your point was based on a fatally biased comparison, viz. doctors versus firearm accidents. Since accidents are by definition unexpected, and since doctors are by definition visited only when something has already gone physically awry, that comparison remains fatally flawed, ergo there is no valid point on which to base any "principle", be it political or otherwise.

Finally I would be remiss if I did not, on behalf of the board and the entire internet, re-call to your attention the fact that posting in bold is obnoxious and arrogant. Moments ago I made a conference call to the entire internet to assure them that your engagement in this practice was an oversight and shan't be repeated. Unfortunately the internet regarded this as insufficient in light of past practices. Therefore we have agreed that in future when you insist on bold fonts we shall render them into a nice pink.

I look forward to our next correspondence.

Your faithful nemesis,
P. Ogo​

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet.

To Pogo: Less so than liberals always whining about how many people are killed by automobiles every year.

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

And the relevance of that is?

To Billy_Kinetta: Pogo’s talking point!

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

And I'm pretty sure that's why I pointed out what he left out.

To Pogo: Your liberal garbage is the only thing I left out, but you got it in anyway.

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

Noting technological developments is neither "liberal" nor "garbage".
It isn't even "political".

That has nothing to do with the essence of the amendment.

To Billy_Kinetta: Exactly so.

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century. That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

To Pogo: Far too many when you count gun control advocates.

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

Non sequitur.

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

To WillHaftawaite: Fabulous point. Unfortunately, liberals have no use for freedom of speech or freedom of the press.

June 20, 2015​

To: Flanders
123 Main Street
Anywhere, USA

Dear Flanders:

Liberals invented it. We wrote the First Amendment.
And the Second one too.

 

[Auld Phart]

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

Show me how you can slay 20 schoolkids with the internet.

TIA.

Freedom of the Press is part of the 2nd Amendment?

You should read post #10 again, (one of yours),

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet."

If technology has changed for the 2nd A, it's also changed for the 1st.

and, for your information, though not in wide use, there were revolving pistols, rifles, and machine guns in use before the Constitution was written.


Your deflection is noted, tho.

 

[Pogo]

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

Show me how you can slay 20 schoolkids with the internet.

TIA.

Freedom of the Press is part of the 2nd Amendment?

I think you'll find it's part of the first. Let me know if you need help reading it.

You should read post #10 again, (one of yours),

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet."

If technology has changed for the 2nd A, it's also changed for the 1st.

No shit Sherlock. Now return to the post you quoted here to start with and figure it out.

[and, for your information, though not in wide use, there were revolving pistols, rifles, and machine guns in use before the Constitution was written.

Your deflection is noted, tho.

Your illiteracy is noted. Perhaps this is too complex for you.

 

[Auld Phart]

Guess Freedom of the Press only concerns printing presses, because television, radio, internet, IPad, IPhones, etc didn't exist in those days.

Show me how you can slay 20 schoolkids with the internet.

TIA.

Freedom of the Press is part of the 2nd Amendment?

I think you'll find it's part of the first. Let me know if you need help reading it.

You should read post #10 again, (one of yours),

"Nothing changed in over two centuries" in the Constitutional language, if that's what you mean. But technology has changed one HELL of a lot. In the 18th century they didn't even have the Minie ball yet."

If technology has changed for the 2nd A, it's also changed for the 1st.

No shit Sherlock. Now return to the post you quoted here to start with and figure it out.

[and, for your information, though not in wide use, there were revolving pistols, rifles, and machine guns in use before the Constitution was written.

Your deflection is noted, tho.

Your illiteracy is noted. Perhaps this is too complex for you.

more deflection.

You really are becoming quite boring.

 

[BlackSand]

How long have you been retarded?

Everyone, ever, in all of time, says, writes and philosophizes in their own time. When our Founders wrote the Second Amendment -- indeed the entire Bill of Rights -- they did so in the context of their world of the 18th century. That world did not include AK-47s, tanks, drones, nuclear warheads, planes, etc etc etc. They could not consider what did not then exist.

Not many people would need this level explained... SMH

It (18th Century) included homosexuals, abortions and slaves ... The Constitution was changed or adulterated to address those issues.
If you want to say the Constitution doesn't fit the requirements of today as far as the Second Amendment ... Then go through the process necessary to change it and see how far you get.

Or pretend you can continue to make laws that attempt to overrule it ... And in doing so bastardize any application of anything written in the Constitution to start with.
You cannot pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you want to follow when there is a process contained within to properly amend it in the first place.

.